So, the announcement has come down that the next Call of Duty will be subtitled Modern Warfare, which implies they're moving away from WWII and into the modern era. I guess a lot of people saw this coming, but it surprises me. Honestly, I'm disappointed. I know there feels like there are a lot WWII games, but it's an era that's ripe for gameplay. It's the last fight where the good and bad guys were so clearly defined (nazis=bad, no argument). The heroes were average joes, but they were ultra-heroic. It's a good setting. Moving to modern day smells a little me-too. At least to me. That said, CoD is a great series, and I have no question that I'll get this and enjoy it, but the problem with CoD3 wasn't the setting...

I think it is a welcome departure from the normal setting of the series, sales of CoD3 weren't as great as CoD2 so I'm sure they realized they need to take the series in a new direction to freshen it up a bit.

My biggest issues with WWII shooters is that they don't vary the Theatres enough. The Pacific has barely been touched in games, and some of the biggest and best battles were fought along the Pacific Midway.

I think the shooters focus way too much on western europe and the bigger battles. I like that Brothers in Arms touched on smaller battles in the whole of the D-day operation.

As for Modern Warfare, I think there is some opportunity for compelling game play.

I guess I see it from both sides.

If I were to develop a WWII shooter I would almost completely ignore the Western Theatre of Operations. Maybe have a few missions but mainly in Eastern Europe and pre-D-Day.

Logged

"I hate cynicism -- it's my least favorite quality and it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien

I think it is a welcome departure from the normal setting of the series, sales of CoD3 weren't as great as CoD2 so I'm sure they realized they need to take the series in a new direction to freshen it up a bit.

I think it's because CoD3 came out so soon after CoD2. Having a fourth game already announced, it's starting to feel like the Madden of wargames.

Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!You are now of the rank reprobate

I think it is a welcome departure from the normal setting of the series, sales of CoD3 weren't as great as CoD2 so I'm sure they realized they need to take the series in a new direction to freshen it up a bit.

Doubtful this in reaction to CoD3's sales. Infinity Ward (developer of CoD 1 & 2) has likely been working on CoD 4 since CoD 2 wrapped while Treyarch handled the dev duties on CoD Big Red One and CoD 3. Alternating developers lets Activision get the series out on a yearly basis while still allowing for closer to a two year development window.

My biggest issues with WWII shooters is that they don't vary the Theatres enough. The Pacific has barely been touched in games, and some of the biggest and best battles were fought along the Pacific Midway.

Exactly. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a WWII shooter that takes you from the landings on the beaches of Iwo Jima to the moment the flag was placed on the mountain top; um... I mean the actual 1st flag, not the 2nd photo op one. And that's just one example of many WWII pacific battles that haven't been covered.And WTF about there being no Korean war based shooter! That war had some of the most grueling and amazing land battles in it.

They've tried a couple of games in the Pacific, but they don't do as well. Maybe Far Cry aside, people don't like stalking through the jungles. I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

As for the sales on COD3 leading to the switch to modern warfare, it seems they were working on this game before COD3 even came out. Even if that isn't the case, I think it's more a question of COD3 just not being as good as COD2. COD2 sold huge. Wouldn't that steer you to make more WWII games?

They've tried a couple of games in the Pacific, but they don't do as well. Maybe Far Cry aside, people don't like stalking through the jungles. I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

As for the sales on COD3 leading to the switch to modern warfare, it seems they were working on this game before COD3 even came out. Even if that isn't the case, I think it's more a question of COD3 just not being as good as COD2. COD2 sold huge. Wouldn't that steer you to make more WWII games?

I think the reason they didn't do well was because they sucked. I have yet to see a Pacific Theatre game with the same effort and polish of some of the others. Also, what about Sicily? Africa gets little love too. The fact of the matter was that World War II took place around the globe, hell there were battles in Alaska, but WWII games should be called "Battle for Europe" games.

Logged

"I hate cynicism -- it's my least favorite quality and it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien

Africa gets involved sometimes (I think it was in COD2, IIRC), but the desert is a tough place for a shooter. Tanks, great, but shooting is tough.

Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault was good for the PC (especially after the lame Rising Sun), but I still don't think it did very well. They put a lot of effort into that one, but it seemed to be the nail in the Pacific Theater.

I think people think of the Pacific as more of a naval battle (with dogfighting heavily involved, of course), the campaign in Africa as more tank heavy and the foot battles as being mainly in Europe. Oh, and if we ever see Medal of Honor: Alaskan Assault, I'll laugh hysterically.

Yea the last PC Medal of Honor was all Pacific, and pretty fun too. It seemed to be overlooked though. I've played many a WWII shooter, but I havn't finished one lately as I just feel to much of a sameness with them now and just get bored after a few levels.

Guys there is a very simple reason that we haven't seen many successfull WW2 games in the Pacific- short of The Thin Red Line there hasn't been in a major recent movie or series for them to copy from the way they have cribbed from Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Enemy at the Gates.

However, HBO just greenlit the Pacfiic sequel to Band of Brothers so expect to see a rash of Pacific themed games started about a year after it airs.

However, HBO just greenlit the Pacfiic sequel to Band of Brothers so expect to see a rash of Pacific themed games started about a year after it airs.

One can only hope that this along with the recent Flags of our Fathers film will stimulate some proper treatement of this theatre for a quality shooter.This still doesn't address the problem of there being zilch shooters themed on the Korean war. I guess the Korean campaign really was the forgotten war.

However, HBO just greenlit the Pacfiic sequel to Band of Brothers so expect to see a rash of Pacific themed games started about a year after it airs.

One can only hope that this along with the recent Flags of our Fathers film will stimulate some proper treatement of this theatre for a quality shooter.This still doesn't address the problem of there being zilch shooters themed on the Korean war. I guess the Korean campaign really was the forgotten war.

Or everyone would expect to be in their tents making gin in their stills while waiting for the chopper to arrive with wounded.

In fairness, the air war for Korea is far more interesting. The land battles seemed to be a lot of going nowhere.

i heard about COD moving away from WWII a long time ago(before number 3 came out)...i was hoping it was a rumour

call of duty should stick with WWII,its what made it....now with modern battles,its gonna get like battlefield,which is good...but ,i want a WWII shooter....the medal of honour games are crap,and i always relied on my COD games to give me that WWII stuff

i wonder what it would be like if they went the other way,and brought out a WWI shooter,no one does world war 1 games...of course WWI was just known as 'The Great War' at that time,because the sequel hadnt been written yet

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

No, you're not wrong. The WWII museum in New Orleans has an entire section devoted to the Pacific theater and the sheer brutality of it, and massive atrocities committed, will have you in tears by the time you leave.

The Phillapine massacre was horrific, all those people packed into that building, and the Japanese not wanting to waste ammunition had them all killed, one by one by bayonette.

Simply put, the same way the Nazis viewed Jews and other "undesirables" as not human, the Japanese command viewed the people of China. Maybe they didn't have as a theatrical a act like the final solution, but no less horrific.

However, the main reason why they moved to a modern combat theme is that the World War 2 Medal of Honor style FPS (And let's be frank, it is the medal of honor style despite the extra trappings) is that the genre is played out.

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

No, you're not wrong. The WWII museum in New Orleans has an entire section devoted to the Pacific theater and the sheer brutality of it, and massive atrocities committed, will have you in tears by the time you leave.

I think the moral grey area comes in with the atomic bomb thing. And it's easy to separate modern Germans from Nazis. The Japanese are still the Japanese. It's a perception thing whether it's true or not.

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

No, you're not wrong. The WWII museum in New Orleans has an entire section devoted to the Pacific theater and the sheer brutality of it, and massive atrocities committed, will have you in tears by the time you leave.

I think the moral grey area comes in with the atomic bomb thing. And it's easy to separate modern Germans from Nazis. The Japanese are still the Japanese. It's a perception thing whether it's true or not.

I guess the gray area is whether we should have dropped a few more on them. <cough> Remember, war on civilians was an accepted tactic back then.

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

No, you're not wrong. The WWII museum in New Orleans has an entire section devoted to the Pacific theater and the sheer brutality of it, and massive atrocities committed, will have you in tears by the time you leave.

I think the moral grey area comes in with the atomic bomb thing. And it's easy to separate modern Germans from Nazis. The Japanese are still the Japanese. It's a perception thing whether it's true or not.

I guess the gray area is whether we should have dropped a few more on them. <cough> Remember, war on civilians was an accepted tactic back then.

But I'm talking about the moral boundaries of the modern gamer looking back.

Fighting/sniping in the trenches with biplanes strafing above while the first generation of tanks lumber toward your position from out of the fog, sneaking over to the enemies trenches through no-mans land....that would be a blast if done right.

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

No, you're not wrong. The WWII museum in New Orleans has an entire section devoted to the Pacific theater and the sheer brutality of it, and massive atrocities committed, will have you in tears by the time you leave.

I think the moral grey area comes in with the atomic bomb thing. And it's easy to separate modern Germans from Nazis. The Japanese are still the Japanese. It's a perception thing whether it's true or not.

I guess the gray area is whether we should have dropped a few more on them. <cough> Remember, war on civilians was an accepted tactic back then.

But I'm talking about the moral boundaries of the modern gamer looking back.

Also, I think people are hoping to sell some games in Japan...

Just make it a 360 exclusive then. Problem solved

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

I think it's more likely that the Japanese as bad guys lead to a morally gray area that you don't get mowing down Nazis.

Howzat? They were every bit as evil and twisted as the nazis.

Yeah, I was pretty sure WWII era Japan had a terrible reputation, which is part of the reason they have bad relations with vietnam and china. Not something I've ever studied so I'm willing to be wrong on that, but...

No, you're not wrong. The WWII museum in New Orleans has an entire section devoted to the Pacific theater and the sheer brutality of it, and massive atrocities committed, will have you in tears by the time you leave.

I think the moral grey area comes in with the atomic bomb thing. And it's easy to separate modern Germans from Nazis. The Japanese are still the Japanese. It's a perception thing whether it's true or not.

I guess the gray area is whether we should have dropped a few more on them. <cough> Remember, war on civilians was an accepted tactic back then.

But I'm talking about the moral boundaries of the modern gamer looking back.